LDS church redefines apostasy to include same sex marriage

[Joker]

Just FYI, Elder Christofferson has a brother who is homosexual (http://kutv.com/news/local/lds-leader-uses-family-as-example-of-harmony-between-church-gays). This obviously a subject that he is very close to.

 

 

Yet, so far. Not anywhere near as close a relationship as that of parent and child. 

[Lawana]

Just FYI, Elder Christofferson has a brother who is homosexual (http://kutv.com/news/local/lds-leader-uses-family-as-example-of-harmony-between-church-gays). This obviously a subject that he is very close to.

Meaning what, exactly?

 

Being a mother, I have a hard time imagining something I wouldn't do for my child. I could generalize that and say that is the nature of motherhood. Except that there are mothers that abandon and abuse their children

 

While having a gay relative increases the odds of being sympathetic to their issues, he could still be convinced he is acting for the greater good by disavowing acceptance of homosexuality in general.

[justasque]

.

 

Nobody is asking anyone to disavow loved ones. The change does ask for certain people to disavow the PRACTICE of same gender cohabitation.

 

But it is asking adults who want to be baptized in the church to live apart from their parents.  The new LDS policy requires adult children of gay parents to live apart from their parents even if the parents are no longer in a same-sex relationship.  This, to me, feels very much like asking them to disavow their loved ones - to shun them even.  This is in no way a pro-family policy.  My children know they always have a home with me; the same goes for my parents.  We are family, and families often live together so they can take care of each other, especially in times of difficulty, crisis, illness, and towards the end of life.  I do not understand the point of view that somehow the LDS policy is being helpful to the children in same-sex families.

 

No, but a grown adult is much more capable of navigating the consequences of choosing a religion that teaches doctrine contrary to what they were taught in their families growing up.  

 

I think this new rule protects gay families.  The church has always declared that the family is central to God's plan and the church exists to support the family.  I can see why the church would not want to be in a position where they were teaching a child that his/her family unit was contrary to God's laws. I don't know if it's been mentioned in this thread yet, but the same rule exists for children of polygamist parents. They can't be baptized until they are 18 either, but there's no uproar over that.

 

Many religious families with gay kids manage to walk this line just fine.  I have to wonder - Did any GLBTQ families ask for this "protection"?  Wouldn't GLBTQ families who were concerned about this just refuse to allow their children to be baptized?   

 

 

I don't think the term "rejecting" is accurate.  All are invited to church. However, full participation and being able to take part in certain ordinances requires a commitment to live up to certain standards. That includes not having any sexual contact outside of marriage. It means abstaining from alcohol and drugs. It means paying a 10 percent tithe on all income. And much more.  But everyone who is interested in joining the church is invited to make any necessary changes to their lives so they can be baptized.  And it's not uncommon for a person to make mistakes that put their membership in jeopardy, but they are still invited to return to full fellowship in the church when they have made the necessary changes.  

 

With regard to the children of gay parents, they would be allowed to attend church and it's other activities, just not be formally baptized until they are legal adults.  But they aren't being rejected. I know several young men and women who attend church faithfully but aren't able to be baptized because their parents will not give permission. They are still lovingly welcomed to activities and church meetings.

 

Even if you can make the argument that the children are not being rejected by the church, the church is still asking children (of legal age) to reject their parents by committing to never living in the same household.  For families where it is normal and expected for a child to welcome sick, struggling, or dying parents into their home, and for parents to welcome sick, struggling, or dying children into their home, this church policy is asking them to reject their obligations to family members, something I find morally problematic - much more so than homosexual sex.

 

This is another good one. If you can even slightly, minusculely entertain the idea that this policy is NOT out there to be descriminatory or to shun or to shame the parents, continue to consider those things. If you can open your mind to the idea that the First Presidency is not doing this to be hurtful or vindictive, then maybe it is out of love and protection.

 

I know that idea is repulsive and offensive to some who cannot fathom how that is possible.

 

ETA: I forgot the link: http://www.dannyras.com/blog/why-the-recent-lds-policy-change-is-actually-pro-gay-family

 

I can understand how church elders could come to the belief that this policy is not discriminatory, and is somehow loving and protective.  But it does seem like they did not choose to consult the families who would actually be affected by such a policy.  Simple questions like "what if a child wants to move in to care for an ailing gay parent" or "what if a parent's marriage will help an ill child to get health insurance" could have led to deep discussions and result in a more finely tuned policy that would seek to maintain family bonds, protections, and obligations where ever possible.  

 

[December]

I have to agree with this. What happens on the other end...if your child is gay do you have to kick them out of home at 18 and never let them come back...I could never do that.

 

I know plenty of LDS parents with gay children...I wouldn't want to be them right now.

 

And it doesn't matter what kind of compassionate spin the church puts as an explanation...there are plenty of fundamentalist LDS people who will use this as an excuse to shun thier kids or parents in public ...to give support that it is ok to treat your family members this way.

 

It isn't.

 

Not a Mormon, never have been, so this is just a guess, but I would think that homosexual children could continue living with their parents, but the Church would expect that the parents refuse to let their child's same sex partner live with them.  It seems like the living together part is where it crosses the line in their minds from just being another sin to being apostasy and worthy of excommunication. 

[Btervet]

Not a Mormon, never have been, so this is just a guess, but I would think that homosexual children could continue living with their parents, but the Church would expect that the parents refuse to let their child's same sex partner live with them.  It seems like the living together part is where it crosses the line in their minds from just being another sin to being apostasy and worthy of excommunication. 

 

If I understand it correctly it's not living together or gay sex that is the problem. It's gay marriage. One is a sin (in the eyes of the church, not mine), one is a willful rejection of the church's beliefs.

[Veritaserum]

This policy is devastating to me and so many people I care about. There are lots of queer people who, for reasons of their own, would like to raise their children in the church. There are lots and lots of queer people who followed church leaders' advice and entered into mixed orientation marriages, which have an extremely high failure rate. So, there are children who have divorced parents: one straight and one gay. If the gay parent gets married to a person of the same sex, the children get punished for it. Never mind that both gay parent and straight parent may agree to raise the child in the church. Never mind that both parents, even the gay parent in a same sex relationship, might believe in the church overall and want their kids to be LDS.

 

This is not a policy that protects families. It is not loving. It is cruel. So heartbreakingly cruel.

 

I've wrestled with my membership over the past 7.5 years. It's gut-wrenching to acknowledge the damage being done by a church you love to people who are already marginalized by society. It's soul-crushing to question everything you were taught, to have your testimony and surety crumble. It hurts to have your church perpetuate hatred in the name of God.

 

I'm a descendent of Mormon pioneers. My people go way back to almost the beginning. This is my heritage. This is my blood. But this is wrong. And the God I believe in expects me to stand for justice and love, not perpetuate cruelty in Their name.

 

My 15yo is queer. There are LDS kids who are kicked out of their homes for being queer. That's not a practice that's condoned by church leaders, but it's not condemned either. Orthodox LDS parents are told to tolerate their queer children, but not be proud of them, not let them have their partner stay at the house on a visit.

 

Yet it still hurts an astonishing amount for leaders to require children to disavow their parents. I thought I had moved beyond the point the church leaders could surprise me or make me weep. I was wrong.

[Veritaserum]

If I understand it correctly it's not living together or gay sex that is the problem. It's gay marriage. One is a sin (in the eyes of the church, not mine), one is a willful rejection of the church's beliefs.

Gay sex without living together or marriage = possible church discipline

 

Gay sex in a committed relationship (cohabitation or marriage) = apostasy and excommunication

[abba12]

No they decided to stay in the BSA because they were allowed to choose leaders in accordance with their standards ie. not gay.

 

I was actually disaapointed as the church was saying they were going to introduce their own program for boys. Here in Australia there are no church run scout groups and was I hoping my boys would finally get a program to participate in...nope. I enrolled them in the local non-church Scout group the next day..If they get a gay Scout leader..I am fine with it. I just get tired of the USA being the only ones considered in this supposed world wide church.

 

I'm not sure if you were looking for just LDS run groups, or church run scout groups in general. Just letting you know that Girls Brigade and Boys Brigade are active and running in Australia, both being church run scouting groups. That's not to say they're necessarily active in your area, but they are around, there's three groups in a half hour radius of me here in south-east queensland. They're mostly run by more traditional Baptist churches I think, ones with older congregations and less charismatic influences. 

[sewingmama]

I'm not sure if you were looking for just LDS run groups, or church run scout groups in general. Just letting you know that Girls Brigade and Boys Brigade are active and running in Australia, both being church run scouting groups. That's not to say they're necessarily active in your area, but they are around, there's three groups in a half hour radius of me here in south-east queensland. They're mostly run by more traditional Baptist churches I think, ones with older congregations and less charismatic influences.

Thankyou. I will look into it. I am not opposed to my kids going to other church denomination activities but my DH does ( sigh).

[Alessandra]

I grew up in the Mormon church and left on not great terms, so I'm a bit biased, but this doesn't surprise me.

 

The Mormon Church is very family focused. This can be good, but also very damaging to individuals. It is common to shun or punish the family members of someone who doesn't follow the rules of the church. I was often told I'd be eternally punished because I couldn't be sealed to my family. Through no fault of my own. Family focused can be a two-sided coin.

Can you explain what it means to be sealed to your family? I had thought sealing was about marriage? Thanks!

[Mom-ninja.]

No I don't think I know what every family believes. BUT, each child who is to be baptized is interviewed and deemed worthy and/or capable of baptism for it to be approved. And it's none of my business if/why someone has been approved or denied baptism.

 

There are pieces here that not everyone has. There are surely matters and concerns the First Presidency deals wih regularly enough to make this guideline. Is it really bigoted of me to want to believe that this is a measure of protection to families and children? That, if this is God's church, then, as unpopular it seems, God is directing His church with a perfect perspective? The policy for these under-aged kids is not Never; it is Not Right Now.

First, the phrase "deemed worthy" is just nauseating. It is drawing a line between humans with worth and humans of no worth. That's not what I teach my kids....that some people are worthy and others are not. But then that's why I rejected the LDS church as a teen while living in SLC. Being told I was "not worthy" was enough to let me know the LDS church is all about "us" and "them" and that one group is superior to the other. 

 

 

As for the "not Never; it is Not Right Now" mind set....that is a beautiful, shining example of cognitive dissonance. 

 

I'm LDS and this is the first I heard of it.. I can get on board with declaring same sex marriage as apostasy as it is contrary to the churches teachings...but to punish the children...I won't ever accept that...it's not right.

 

And disavowing your parents to get baptised...no way..no matter what my parents did/do I would never disavow them to become LDS. My parents make their own choices that have nothing to do with me..I won't stop loving them.

 

I can see it coming...parents will soon be asked to disown thier children for being gay. I WOULD NEVER reject my children for the church...it isnt in me...I couldn't do it. I am temple married and endowed and if that day comes where I was asked to reject my kids for something they did I would happliy leave.

Wait, we've been told that it's not disavowing the person...it's disavowing the practice. 

 

 

Gay sex without living together or marriage = possible church discipline

 

Gay sex in a committed relationship (cohabitation or marriage) = apostasy and excommunication

So, they are encouraging casual, noncommittal sex over having a stable, monogamous relationship. I can see lots of young people getting behind that. ;)

[Veritaserum]

Can you explain what it means to be sealed to your family? I had thought sealing was about marriage? Thanks!

The sealing ordinance is what binds families together for eternity. If a couple gets sealed in the temple, all their children born after that are automatically sealed to them. This is called being born in the covenant. If a couple has children prior to being sealed or if the couple adopts, the children go to the temple and participate in the sealing ceremony to be sealed to their parents. According orthodox belief, if you're not sealed, you don't get to be with your family in the afterlife. LDS ordinances are seen as the only ones God recognizes and they're seen as literally necessary. This is why temple work is done by proxy to make sure deceased people have a valid baptism as well as other LDS ordinances.

[Butter]

I was actually disaapointed as the church was saying they were going to introduce their own program for boys. Here in Australia there are no church run scout groups and was I hoping my boys would finally get a program to participate in...nope. I enrolled them in the local non-church Scout group the next day..If they get a gay Scout leader..I am fine with it. I just get tired of the USA being the only ones considered in this supposed world wide church.

 

In countries that are not the US and Canada, they are supposed to do Activity Days for Boys for 8-11 and Duty to God for 12+.  Those programs are supposed to be very similar to the girls' programs.  Actually, our 12+ boys are supposed to do Duty to God as well as Scouts, but it doesn't really happen.  I was hoping they'd drop BSA just because I hate Scouts and especially the amount of money we have to spend combined with the exceedingly high pay the CEO gets.  In our ward the Deacons do Scouts, but once they are 14, well, let's just say my kid who turned 14 last month is getting *really* good at basketball.

 

But it is asking adults who want to be baptized in the church to live apart from their parents.  The new LDS policy requires adult children of gay parents to live apart from their parents even if the parents are no longer in a same-sex relationship.  This, to me, feels very much like asking them to disavow their loved ones - to shun them even.  This is in no way a pro-family policy.  My children know they always have a home with me; the same goes for my parents.  We are family, and families often live together so they can take care of each other, especially in times of difficulty, crisis, illness, and towards the end of life.  I do not understand the point of view that somehow the LDS policy is being helpful to the children in same-sex

 

There is absolutely nothing in the policy that says the child can never live with their parents again.  It just says they need to be living on their own when they join the church and this is likely so they are truly and fully making their own decisions and have their own testimony and beliefs.  We don't know what the future will bring and no one is being asked to never see their parents again.  If there was illness, crisis, whatever, the child could care for their parents (or the other way around) and the child wouldn't be ex'd for that.  They are still their parents.  Our former Sunday School teacher's brother died about 25 years ago of AIDS contracted through homosexual sex.  His parents were encouraged by the local leadership to take him in and care for him in his last few months (this was back when AIDS was a death sentence sooner than later and he didn't live long after diagnosis).  Everyone supported them.  I honestly can't imagine anything different if the roles were reversed and the parent needed the care from their child.  Note this was also not in Utah.  Outside of Utah is very much not culturally the same as inside of Utah, but that's a whole other issue.

 

Can you explain what it means to be sealed to your family? I had thought sealing was about marriage? Thanks!

 

Yes and no.  There are two kinds of sealing.  One is at the time of marriage and includes marriage in some countries (some countries the law requires marriage at a courthouse or some sort of place like that to be a legal marriage in that country).  The other is sealing after the couple has been married and may include children if there have been any born.  A family that is sealed together will continue to be a family after death.  We believe in order to be an eternal family you must be sealed in the temple.  When a couple is sealed at or just after marriage or even later the children born after are sealed to them.  If they already have children at the time of sealing, those children are brought to the altar as well and sealed to the parents (for example, my parents were sealed in 1976 when they had my brother and sister already and they were sealed to them at that time; I was born in 1978 so I was born sealed to my parents, or born in the covenant as we call it).

[Melinda in VT]

The handbook says they have to disavow the practice, but the requirement to not be living with them feels like disavowing the parents.

 

I grew up a devout Mormon with a Never-Mo father who used tobacco and drank coffee and beer. During my baptism interview, I had to avow my belief in the Word of Wisdom and agree to abide by it, but at no time was it suggested I couldn't do that while living with my dad.

 

Reducing family conflict for children is a great goal. And certainly they could have written a worse policy (one that would tie baptism to who has custody), but I think having children attend church and get all the teachings but not be able to be baptized if they want to be will increase conflict and alienation.

 

Although, my ex-Mo sister-in-law seems to think the policy would have been nice because it would have prevented her kids from being baptized. It's my devout Mormon brother-in-law who seems troubled by it. And he's never troubled about anything from the LDS church.

 

Still, given what I've seen, I think the new policy will do more harm than good.

[Veritaserum]

I haven't been able to sleep for the past two nights. This weighs so heavily and people (inside and outside the church) are saying things are making everything worse. I'm sure it is hard for an orthodox Mormon or someone who's never been Mormon to understand why any queer Mormons would even want to stay or raise their kids in the church. For many queer Mormons, the church is part of their heritage and blood. It's a culture and a lifestyle. It's a huge part of what defines you as a person. I'm a very non-traditional believer, but I'm still a Mormon. It's been bred into me across generations. It's complicated and messy. There are many, many Mormons (queer or not) who reject teachings that they find hurtful or wrong and focus on the things they agree with. It might be something like a Jew who rejects circumcision and doesn't keep Kosher, but who still finds value in other rituals and beliefs.

 

Whether or not you can understand why a queer Mormon might want to stay or might want to raise kids in the church, realize that they do. And this policy slams a door in their faces in a harsh, cruel way. Don't rejoice in it. Don't say they're better off. This is a literal* "go to hell" for a believer. It hurts.

 

*LDS theology doesn't really have "hell," but it marks an eternal separation from God unless they disavow their spouse and/or parent(s).

[SKL]

I disagree with a lot of what happens in churches, including the one I attend with my kids.  But I don't agree with trying to pressure religious bodies to conform to mainstream beliefs.  It is helpful to know what they teach in church and what is necessary to become members, so those who don't agree can move on.  Beyond that, and short of actual illegal abuse, it's really none of our business IMO.

[TeacherZee]

I'm not Mormon and this is another nail in the and I will never be coffin, but here the policy about not being able to live with parents who are LGBTQ would cause major problems for someone who would want to join (and we have a LOT of Mormon missionaries in this area). We have a SEVERE housing shortage in this area and it is getting worse every day. Not living with parents isn't an option for many, not because they are lazy or not ready to leave home, but because there are no places for them to live. 

 

 

[Melinda in VT]

I disagree with a lot of what happens in churches, including the one I attend with my kids. But I don't agree with trying to pressure religious bodies to conform to mainstream beliefs. It is helpful to know what they teach in church and what is necessary to become members, so those who don't agree can move on. Beyond that, and short of actual illegal abuse, it's really none of our business IMO.

It might be none of your business, but many of us posting in this thread are Mormon or were Mormon and have Mormon family members and friends who are grieving and worried about this decision.

[Scarlett]

There is the option of people conforming their conduct to the beliefs of the religion they want to be a part of or want their children to be a part of.

[Butter]

Interesting... a friend of a friend commented on a post about this my friend made on FB.  The friend of the friend is active LDS.  Her son is gay and he and his partner are planning to adopt.  This woman has a good relationship with her son and his partner and is looking forward to grandchild(ren).  She said she wants the grandchild(ren) blessed and baptized, but her son, who has left the church, does NOT.  He has already made that clear to her, but she still wanted to pressure him into letting her have those things done.  Since this policy was released, she has rethought that and realized she needs to be respectful of her son's wishes and has realized her desires and actions might have caused serious contention between herself and her son and his family and she doesn't want that to happen.  So there's a real life example where this policy has already done good and the child(ren) in question are not even born yet.

[mb4]

"Or the reverse, can you imagine your dd being denied the Eucharist if you were gay?"

 

The Mormon equivalent to the Catholic Eucharist would be the sacrament, and children of same sex couples would not be denied from taking the sacrament.

[Veritaserum]

Interesting... a friend of a friend commented on a post about this my friend made on FB. The friend of the friend is active LDS. Her son is gay and he and his partner are planning to adopt. This woman has a good relationship with her son and his partner and is looking forward to grandchild(ren). She said she wants the grandchild(ren) blessed and baptized, but her son, who has left the church, does NOT. He has already made that clear to her, but she still wanted to pressure him into letting her have those things done. Since this policy was released, she has rethought that and realized she needs to be respectful of her son's wishes and has realized her desires and actions might have caused serious contention between herself and her son and his family and she doesn't want that to happen. So there's a real life example where this policy has already done good and the child(ren) in question are not even born yet.

And there are children who are already born who are being hurt by this policy. The grandma wouldn't have been able to bless or baptize the grandchildren without her son's consent under the old policy. This helps no one.

 

ETA: My 9yo isn't baptized. My parents or dh's parents could not have her baptized without my and my husband's consent even though she's a child of record and in the church's files.

[livetoread]

Interesting... a friend of a friend commented on a post about this my friend made on FB. The friend of the friend is active LDS. Her son is gay and he and his partner are planning to adopt. This woman has a good relationship with her son and his partner and is looking forward to grandchild(ren). She said she wants the grandchild(ren) blessed and baptized, but her son, who has left the church, does NOT. He has already made that clear to her, but she still wanted to pressure him into letting her have those things done. Since this policy was released, she has rethought that and realized she needs to be respectful of her son's wishes and has realized her desires and actions might have caused serious contention between herself and her son and his family and she doesn't want that to happen. So there's a real life example where this policy has already done good and the child(ren) in question are not even born yet.

I doubt her son sees it as a good policy, though he might be relieved she isn't going to pressure him. I'm sure he can see why she she isn't going to pressure him, but still would any heterosexual son or daughter with grandkids. I seriously doubt any part of that makes him feel more cared for and loved than before the policy.

[Lawana]

Interesting... a friend of a friend commented on a post about this my friend made on FB. The friend of the friend is active LDS. Her son is gay and he and his partner are planning to adopt. This woman has a good relationship with her son and his partner and is looking forward to grandchild(ren). She said she wants the grandchild(ren) blessed and baptized, but her son, who has left the church, does NOT. He has already made that clear to her, but she still wanted to pressure him into letting her have those things done. Since this policy was released, she has rethought that and realized she needs to be respectful of her son's wishes and has realized her desires and actions might have caused serious contention between herself and her son and his family and she doesn't want that to happen. So there's a real life example where this policy has already done good and the child(ren) in question are not even born yet.

If she needs a policy of an organization to tell her to do the right thing, i.e. be respectful of her grown son's parenting decisions, that says more about her than about the policy.

[Veritaserum]

Also, (and this may shock you given what people love to say about there being a "gay agenda") it turns out that not all queer people believe and want the same things. So, while there are definitely queer ex-Mormons who don't want to have anything to do with the church and wouldn't want their kids to have anything to do with the church, there are ALSO believing queer Mormons who DO want to stay in the church with their families (including same sex spouse and kids) and who DO want to raise their kids in the church.

[Lawana]

There is the option of people conforming their conduct to the beliefs of the religion they want to be a part of or want their children to be a part of.

Yes, there is that. It has been tried over and over. The fruit of that is very often broken marriages, depression, suicide.

[Scarlett]

Yes, there is that. It has been tried over and over. The fruit of that is very often broken marriages, depression, suicide.

And very often it is not.

 

lots of broken marriages, depression and suicide that have nothing to do with SSA.

[Veritaserum]

Yes, there is that. It has been tried over and over. The fruit of that is very often broken marriages, depression, suicide.

Yes.

 

I think it's actually very common for someone to be part of a group or religion that doesn't 100% align with their personal views. Humans are adept at ignoring what seems irrelevant or unhelpful. I doubt anyone, even an ultra orthodox LDS person, agrees with 100% of every spoken or written word from church leaders or members. Some of the things said contradict other things, so it's impossible to agree with it all.

 

Ultimately, whether or not affiliation with a particular group is a net positive or negative is an extremely personal and individual determination.

[Audrey]

It hardly matters, IMO. Those who want to stay in that church will find ways to justify and defend the church's policies whether they personally agree or not. Those who find it repulsive will either leave or never had anything to do with that church in the first place. This kind of thing is nothing new.

[Veritaserum]

And very often it is not.

 

lots of broken marriages, depression and suicide that have nothing to do with SSA.

Sure. But in the context of a religion like Mormonism, a LOT of people stay for family or social reasons that have nothing to do with same sex attraction. It's too costly to leave because their families might reject them, their spouses might divorce them, their communities might shun them. So they keep their heads down and avoid rocking the boat unless they just can't anymore.

[Lawana]

And very often it is not.

 

lots of broken marriages, depression and suicide that have nothing to do with SSA.

As for the second sentence, of course, I don't think anyone would argue the contrary.

 

For the first, in regards to gay Mormons, while I have no doubt someone could produce a poster child gay who is completely okay with living a celibate life with no intimate relationship with a person of the same gender, it is, IME, *far* from being very common. The whole of the church is centered around the traditional family of male husband, female wife, and children. Those that can't authentically fit that mold very often feel marginalized at best. Some do manage to get through mortal life with the promise of everything resolving in the hereafter, but it often comes at a great cost. *speaking from my experience and with those I know

 

I sometimes wonder how many straight persons would comply if there were a blanket edict to be perpetually celibate and be prohibited from entering into an emotionally intimate relationship with anyone of the opposite sex.

[Scarlett]

As for the second sentence, of course, I don't think anyone would argue the contrary.

 

For the first, in regards to gay Mormons, while I have no doubt someone could produce a poster child gay who is completely okay with living a celibate life with no intimate relationship with a person of the same gender, it is, IME, *far* from being very common. The whole of the church is centered around the traditional family of male husband, female wife, and children. Those that can't authentically fit that mold very often feel marginalized at best. Some do manage to get through mortal life with the promise of everything resolving in the hereafter, but it often comes at a great cost. *speaking from my experience and with those I know

 

I sometimes wonder how many straight persons would comply if there were a blanket edict to be perpetually celibate and be prohibited from entering into an emotionally intimate relationship with anyone of the opposite sex.

No doubt more difficult for some than others. I am not unaware of the difficulty. I believe it comes down to a belief system. If one really believes something is wrong they will not look for a way to make it Un wrong. But if they do decide something is not wrong because in part perhaps it is something they really really want then I think they have to own that decision even if it means no longer being part of a group of people who still belive it is wrong.

[blondeviolin]

Sure. But in the context of a religion like Mormonism, a LOT of people stay for family or social reasons that have nothing to do with same sex attraction. It's too costly to leave because their families might reject them, their spouses might divorce them, their communities might shun them. So they keep their heads down and avoid rocking the boat unless they just can't anymore.

This is where change should happen. The church shouldn't be made to bend standards on anything. HOWEVER, the members should be willing to love, include, and build up people (members and not) regardless of religious conviction, sexual orientation, race, gender, whatever. Rather than being critical of the leaders and this policy, which falls in line with the church's stance on SSA, we should encourage members to love and reach out to everyone, not just where it's comfortable. In the black-and-white, members should be comfortable with the tenants of the chosen religion. And if they're not, people should be able to leave without shunning or shaming. The social aspects of church are nice, but they should NOT be the reason you are attending. Rather than calling for the church to change, though, we should encourage people to change.

 

Also, if you're living within the "Mormon Belt," realize that outside of Utah and Idaho and other areas, being LDS is completely different and not about social and cultural needs as much as religious ones. I attend my meetings regularly. My husband serves in a stake calling. And yet we are friends with members, non-members, less active members, and inactive members who are all good people doing their best and trying to raise their families in the best way they can. And I couldn't care less what sexual orientation they are. It's interesting how we often try to stray away from generalizations on this board, but when it comes to this, sweeping generalizations are often made.

 

Perhaps if we want to affect change in the LDS church and how members can and do shun homosexuals, maybe we need more experience with homosexuals stepping up and standing out telling their experience so PEOPLE can realize how isolating and excluded they make people feel and so they can change how or what they do. Because the church is never going to change its policies on this.

[Lawana]

<snip>

Because the church is never going to change its policies on this.

Oh I think it will change, given enough time. Women will get the priesthood, and families of all configurations will be accepted. When enough people accept that gender roles are just that, and sexual orientation is an inherent trait and not a character flaw.

[Butter]

Also, if you're living within the "Mormon Belt," realize that outside of Utah and Idaho and other areas, being LDS is completely different and not about social and cultural needs as much as religious ones. I attend my meetings regularly. My husband serves in a stake calling. And yet we are friends with members, non-members, less active members, and inactive members who are all good people doing their best and trying to raise their families in the best way they can. And I couldn't care less what sexual orientation they are. It's interesting how we often try to stray away from generalizations on this board, but when it comes to this, sweeping generalizations are often made.

 

This.  Cultural Mormonism is a very different thing inside Mormonland compared with the rest of the world.  We even had a very happy and very vocal mixed orientation couple in our stake and everyone accepted them just how they are.  It wasn't even weird except when people from not around here would post their story or videos and I was always did  double take and then was like, "Oh, wait!  I know them!  They are awesome people."  If all of life surrounded LDS culture everywhere I've lived, I wouldn't have had very many friends or done very many things.

[TranquilMind]

Children are a parents weak spot. Control the lives of the children and you control the parents. 

Well, I guess my mind doesn't wrap around that thought.  My faith doesn't work that way.  I'm not my kids' Holy Spirit.  I give my advice and they have to choose to do the right thing (what I said, of course.  ;)  )

 

Joking a bit, but usually even now as young adults, they come back and say that I was right.  Yeah...it comes with being older than dirt and gaining wisdom!    I also had a very wise mother, so hope I get a fraction of what she had. 

[Veritaserum]

This is where change should happen. The church shouldn't be made to bend standards on anything. HOWEVER, the members should be willing to love, include, and build up people (members and not) regardless of religious conviction, sexual orientation, race, gender, whatever. Rather than being critical of the leaders and this policy, which falls in line with the church's stance on SSA, we should encourage members to love and reach out to everyone, not just where it's comfortable. In the black-and-white, members should be comfortable with the tenants of the chosen religion. And if they're not, people should be able to leave without shunning or shaming. The social aspects of church are nice, but they should NOT be the reason you are attending. Rather than calling for the church to change, though, we should encourage people to change.

 

Also, if you're living within the "Mormon Belt," realize that outside of Utah and Idaho and other areas, being LDS is completely different and not about social and cultural needs as much as religious ones. I attend my meetings regularly. My husband serves in a stake calling. And yet we are friends with members, non-members, less active members, and inactive members who are all good people doing their best and trying to raise their families in the best way they can. And I couldn't care less what sexual orientation they are. It's interesting how we often try to stray away from generalizations on this board, but when it comes to this, sweeping generalizations are often made.

 

Perhaps if we want to affect change in the LDS church and how members can and do shun homosexuals, maybe we need more experience with homosexuals stepping up and standing out telling their experience so PEOPLE can realize how isolating and excluded they make people feel and so they can change how or what they do. Because the church is never going to change its policies on this.

I grew up outside the Mormon Belt and I very much miss the more integrated way Mormons engage with the wider community. I live in Utah now and it's So Hard. I've often joked that maybe the church is true outside of Mormon Corridor, but it doesn't really help those of us who live here. The church's policies, political actions/endorsements (or whatever you want to call them), and statements that Other anyone who isn't mainstream orthodox simply fan the flames of bigotry or fear that are already burning. You can't expect people to learn compassion and sensitivity when you teach them to judge and exclude.

 

I understand that many people don't see current teachings and policies as judgmental and exclusive. I understand that many people want to attribute these policies and teachings to God. I understand that many people want to call them loving. But they are not. I testify to you as the parent of a queer child in the heart of "Zion," that all is NOT well, that people are NOT compassionate and loving with their treatment of the LGBTQIA+ community, that people within the queer community do NOT feel loved or understood or welcomed. They don't even feel tolerated.

 

My testimony is based on a God of love, inclusivity, and grace. I don't see that God represented within Mormonism as a whole and I don't see those values embraced by Mormon people as a whole. There are exceptions, of course. My Relief Society President texted me when she heard news of the new policy because she knew it would be deeply hurtful to me and my family. She may even agree with the policy. I don't know. The point is she showed compassion. She knows this hurts people. Justified or not, it hurts people. If all (or even most) Mormons were like her, it would be so much better for everyone both inside and outside the church. But they're not. She's the exception.

 

Regarding change on this issue within the church, I hope you are wrong. I see change as possible. I hope for change. But the people (mainly the leaders) have to want it, have to be seeking it, have to be open to inspiration to embrace change. And right now they're not. I feel deeply sad about that and I'm not the only one.

[HRAAB]

"Or the reverse, can you imagine your dd being denied the Eucharist if you were gay?"

 

The Mormon equivalent to the Catholic Eucharist would be the sacrament, and children of same sex couples would not be denied from taking the sacrament.

I understand what you're saying, but I hope you can understand for a Catholic, they are not at all equivalent. Denying the Eucharist is denying the person a opportunity of receiving sanctifying grace. It is more in line being denied baptism in the LDS church. The theology and belief between the sacrament for a Mormon and the Eucharist for a Catholic is vastly different. Trying to find apt comparisons is difficult.

[HRAAB]

It hardly matters, IMO. Those who want to stay in that church will find ways to justify and defend the church's policies whether they personally agree or not. Those who find it repulsive will either leave or never had anything to do with that church in the first place. This kind of thing is nothing new.

This is very true. I have enough problems dealing with the religion of my immediate family. I find myself more interested in what the Mormon church does because I live among so many - just on my block there are 5 LDS families. But in the end, it's their issue, not mine.

[mb4]

I understand what you're saying, but I hope you can understand for a Catholic, they are not at all equivalent. Denying the Eucharist is denying the person a opportunity of receiving sanctifying grace. It is more in line being denied baptism in the LDS church. The theology and belief between the sacrament for a Mormon and the Eucharist for a Catholic is vastly different. Trying to find apt comparisons is difficult.

 

Not to nitpick, but children of same- sex couples are not being denied sanctifying grace either.  They are asking for them to wait for baptism until they are 18 no longer under their same sex parents roofs.  In Mormon theology, even if they were to die before then left the home, they could still be baptized by proxy after their death.  

 

In Mormon theology baptism is a covenant with God that is taken very seriously, and one should have a basic understanding of the doctrine before one enters into that covenant.  This is typically done at 8 years old, and children meet with the Bishop and are asked questions about if they believe in the doctrine of the church.

 

 For a child in a same sex home to be baptized would be put in one of two situations:

1) Being baptized without fully understanding Mormon doctrine, which states that homosexual sexual actions  are a sin.  (To be clear having same sex attractions is not considered a sin.)

or 

2) Espousing doctrine that says that same sex marriage/relationships are sin while still a minor living in a same sex home thus putting them in a position of opposition to their parents. 

 

I believe the idea of this policy is to not put children in that situation. 

 

I also don't think that it is completely the same as children of Catholics and Atheists who become baptized with their parents consent. Especially now that same sex marriage is legal,  Mormon doctrine that same sex marriage is a sin would strike at the actual structure of the same sex family unit. 

 

 

Also, I want to point out that the giving of a name for newborns is also not a saving ordinance, but it is basically the step that puts the child on the records of the church as a "member."   The "blessing" portion of that ceremony is actually a separate priesthood blessing, which can still be given at any time to anyone.  

[sewingmama]

In countries that are not the US and Canada, they are supposed to do Activity Days for Boys for 8-11 and Duty to God for 12+. Those programs are supposed to be very similar to the girls' programs. Actually, our 12+ boys are supposed to do Duty to God as well as Scouts, but it doesn't really happen. I was hoping they'd drop BSA just because I hate Scouts and especially the amount of money we have to spend combined with the exceedingly high pay the CEO gets. In our ward the Deacons do Scouts, but once they are 14, well, let's just say my kid who turned 14 last month is getting *really* good at basketball.

 

 

.

Except we don't have that either here...We move every couple of years and not one of our wards/branches have ever held it. My Current branch has held ONE activity since my DD turned 8 and she is 9.5 now and it was something based on reading the scriptures. They get enough of that on Sunday...the kids want to do something fun and active...not sit around reading more scriptures.

 

Anyway I signed my DD up for the local Girl Guides also attended by a few homeschooling girls in the area and DD LOVES it...the leaders are wonderful ..of course the only downside is they hold a lot of activities on Sundays which DD had to miss...but she is happy enough with just the weekly meetings.

 

Then my boys got jealous because DD had something fun to go to and they didn't. I wouldn't even mind if my boys just played basketball every week at the church...at least it would be something.

[Heidi]

Especially now that same sex marriage is legal, Mormon doctrine that same sex marriage is a sin would strike at the actual structure of the same sex family unit.

 

So through this policy, the church wants to *preserve the same sex family unit* for the child.

 

How awful! Those hate-mongers.

(Said sarcastically)

[Veritaserum]

So through this policy, the church wants to *preserve the same sex family unit* for the child.

 

How awful! Those hate-mongers.

(Said sarcastically)

Only until age 18, when the child would have to disavow that family in order to receive saving ordinances. How "nice" of the church to "protect" the child from this conflict until age 18.

 

There's also the whole trying-to-deny-legal-protections-for-same-sex-couples-and-their-children thing that the church leaders have pushed for the past 20 years. You know, how they actively and aggressively tried to destroy these families by preventing them from legitimately existing. Hate-mongers isn't the worst thing they could be called....

[Lawana]

Not to nitpick, but children of same- sex couples are not being denied sanctifying grace either. They are asking for them to wait for baptism until they are 18 no longer under their same sex parents roofs. In Mormon theology, even if they were to die before then left the home, they could still be baptized by proxy after their death.

 

In Mormon theology baptism is a covenant with God that is taken very seriously, and one should have a basic understanding of the doctrine before one enters into that covenant. This is typically done at 8 years old, and children meet with the Bishop and are asked questions about if they believe in the doctrine of the church.

 

For a child in a same sex home to be baptized would be put in one of two situations:

1) Being baptized without fully understanding Mormon doctrine, which states that homosexual sexual actions are a sin. (To be clear having same sex attractions is not considered a sin.)

or

2) Espousing doctrine that says that same sex marriage/relationships are sin while still a minor living in a same sex home thus putting them in a position of opposition to their parents.

 

I believe the idea of this policy is to not put children in that situation.

 

I also don't think that it is completely the same as children of Catholics and Atheists who become baptized with their parents consent. Especially now that same sex marriage is legal, Mormon doctrine that same sex marriage is a sin would strike at the actual structure of the same sex family unit.

 

 

Also, I want to point out that the giving of a name for newborns is also not a saving ordinance, but it is basically the step that puts the child on the records of the church as a "member." The "blessing" portion of that ceremony is actually a separate priesthood blessing, which can still be given at any time to anyone.

Children of a parent who is living unmarried with an opposite gender are not prohibited by policy from getting baptized. Even though sex outside of marriage is a sin.

 

Children of a parent who has committed adultery are likewise not prohibited by policy. Even though adultery is touted as the second worse sin, only murder being worse.

 

The conclusion is that gay sex in an exclusive committed relationship is somehow worse than straight adultery.

 

 

This is not about protecting families. This is about anti gay.

 

Edited yikes mistyped

[Pam in CT]

(((Veritaserum.)))  I am so sorry.

[mb4]

I want to say that I can see how painful and complex this topic is and I apologize because I think my comments have been insensitive to that.  I wish you all the best.  

[Veritaserum]

I want to say that I can see how painful and complex this topic is and I apologize because I think my comments have been insensitive to that. I wish you all the best.

Thank you for apologizing (sincerely). Thank you for realizing that attempts to explain or justify are (at the very least right now) insensitive. So many of my orthodox friends and family members seem utterly clueless of this fact. This policy doesn't affect them or anyone they know (that they're aware of, anyway), so they don't see it as a problem. They think there aren't children of queer people in the church. They think there aren't queer couples in the church. This policy will apply to the random queer-parented family tracted by missionaries, but its biggest impact will be on existing queer members and families. And there are a LOT of these, my own included (multiple times).

[Veritaserum]

Learning more about the people affected is something I hope everyone on all sides of the issue will do. A small percentage of people affected by this policy change have been sharing their stories here:

 

http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/2015/11/policy-affects-people-share-your-stories/

 

This type of story is going to be the most common, I think:

 

"I have two beautiful children. Their father, who I married in the temple, is gay. We are no longer married. I have remained faithful. Fulfilled callings, attend regularly, we read scriptures and have fhe…they have both been baptized already, but this, this right here will be the breaking point. I cannot, will not ask them to choose between the church and their father. I will not ask them to 'disavow' him in order to stay in a church that doesn’t want them. My heart is broken for the church I wanted to remain in, so I that I could affect positive change from within. I won’t now. I can’t. I can’t raise my kids in a church that divides families. This is the breaking point. I am not leaving the church. It left me."

[ChocolateReignRemix]

So through this policy, the church wants to *preserve the same sex family unit* for the child.

 

How awful! Those hate-mongers.

(Said sarcastically)

 

lol So the same church that spent millions trying to prevent SSM is now worried about protecting same sex family units?

 

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

[Lawana]

A blog post that rings true to me.

https://stevebloor.wordpress.com/